Human capital plays an important role in the theory of economic growth, but has been difficult to measure. We survey the literature on cross-cultural IQ tests and conclude that intelligence tests provide one useful measure of human capital. Using a new database of national average IQ, we show that in growth regressions that include only robust control variables, IQ is statistically significant in 99.8% of these 1330 regressions, easily passing a Bayesian model-averaging robustness test. A 1 point increase in a nation’s average IQ is associated with a persistent 0.11% annual increase in GDP per capita. Garett Jones & W. Joel Schneider
The West has 30,000 citizens whose IQ1 of 160 equips them to do highly innovative work in quantum physics, mathematics and anything that interests them. China has 300,000 of them and, because the Chinese always hire geniuses run their country, they all work for the government.
Every year the top 10% of Chinese university graduates, one-million youngsters, take the national civil service examination and the smartest 27,000 are accepted. Those with political ambitions are sent to live in the poorest villages until they raise average incomes by 50%. If they repeat that at scale for a quarter century they might make it to Beijing, as Xi did.
Xi Jinping began his cursus honorum at the same age as Cicero, being elected Village Party Secretary at nineteen – because he could read. His KPIs were excellent for 25 years and, along the way, he picked up a Master’s in Marxist economics and a PhD in rural marketization, his father’s forte. Xi bears ultimate responsibility for the same KPIs and Five Year goals as his governors. (African developmental economist and Oxford PhD Dambisa Moyo, attending a conference in Beijing, was astonished to find herself invited to tea with Xi, where they spent half an hour discussing Chinese aid failures in Africa).
Human Capital
Recently, two geniuses – one ran the space program, and the other who designed its rockets – were made Provincial Governors2, responsible for 5% economic growth in their provinces, for environmental improvement, for a dozen KPIs, and for delivering their share of the Five Year Plan. In preparation, they spent a semester at the world’s most exclusive university, the lakeside campus of the Central Party School in Beijing, where they hung out with world thinkers (who earn small fortunes for giving seminars there). A Hungarian economist said that when he saw his honorarium check, “My hands shook. I actually wept. I paid off the mortgage, bought my wife a car, and put the rest in the bank”.
Despair
President Trump despaired, “People say I don’t like China? No, I love them! But their leaders are much smarter than ours. And we can’t maintain ourselves against that. It’s like playing the New England Patriots and Tom Brady against your high school football team.” His elaboration on Xi’s personal qualities is interesting:
Us
Though 30,0003 Westerners have 160 IQs, none will ever run a city, let alone a country. Honesty is fatal in our politics, and smarter people, for obvious reasons, tend to be more honest. In addition to their lower intelligence, education and morality, our officials have never accomplished anything beyond winning an election, as their disastrous policies make clear. They are accountable to nobody and have no measurable goals.
As Lee Kwan Yew4 warned, there’s no way on Earth the West can compete with China, “The size of China’s displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance. It is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world”.
If you’re interested in how China actually works, read Why China Leads the World: Talent at the Top, Data in the Middle, Democracy from the Bottom. To learn how Chinese officialdom works, read Dean of Shandong, whose author, Daniel Bell, was a Chinese Government official in this lifetime.
IQ is distributed logarithmically and since China’s national IQ is 105, its 1.4 billion citizens harbor 300,000 of them. 95% of us have IQ’s under 130, so theoretical physics is probably beyond us.
There are typically 3 levels of civil service between a provincial governor and the President of China. At the provincial level, the governor is considered a level-1 official. Above the governor are level-2 officials who are responsible for larger regions or multiple provinces, such as the vice-ministers in various ministries of the central government. Level-3 officials are the highest-ranking officials in the country and are responsible for national policies and decision-making. The President of China is a level-3 official.
Because China’s median IQ is 106+ and the West’s is 100, and because IQ is logarithmic and because China has twice as many people as the West.
Lee graduated at the top of his year at Cambridge – he was a genius who ran his country well. His Prime Minister son outshone him by topping Cambridge in mathematics. A local minister said Singapore will succeed if it keeps Prime Ministerial IQ above 130. China’s has probably been above that since 505 AD.
IQ.
I totally agree with the IQ dominance of China (and much of Asia) over the West, with the west having its own issues. Here in UK we can see the superiority of Indian Asians on a daily basis - and not just with the prime minister.
Not so sure about the maths though. IQ is distributed on a Normal Curve (Gaussian curve) not logarithmically. In a sense there is a logarithmic curve involved though this is e^(-x-squared /2), so more complex than simply logarithmic.
Standard deviation is generally assumed to be 15 so with a Chinese mean of 105 that implies 0.0123% of the pop with IQ over 160 or about 177k.
But still with a lower mean of 100 the west would have about a quarter of that rate of >160 genii and a smaller population. I suspect too that 105 is possibly low for China and 100 high for the west. While there may still be some brain drain effect importing the best asians into the west I agree that a 10: ratio China to the west sounds roughly correct.
And your selection by talent point is very accurate.
And then more technically. IQ is normally distributed by design rather than nature. That is the scoring does not so measure IQ but orders all the respondents in rank order and then applies a normal curve on them to get a convenient measure which is called IQ. Yes many natural things (like height) do turn out to have a normal distribution. But there is no actual intelligence measure. Even if there was we have no idea if it would correlate linearly to IQ. Essentially any judgements about IQ of those over 130 are guesses, there is simply not a lot of data about.
None of that though challenges your point that the people running China are smarter than those in the west and selected to be smarter.